Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.prolog > #14858

SWI-Prolog as the gravity of all: Dream Big / Dream Standard (Was: My Citation Source : SWI-Prolog discourse)

Show all headers | View raw

Hi,

So lets recap the history again:

 > How SWI-Prolog went down hills. Its
 > very easy to see. It lost the following
 > hotshots over time:
 >
 > - Paulo Moura (Logtalk)
 > - Markus Triska (CLP(Z))
 > - Ulrich Neumerkel (ISO)
 > - Who else?

With the loss of Ulrich Neumerkel (ISO), it
also liberated itself from ISO. The historic
divided happend in SWI7 and was documented here:

https://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/ulrich/iso-prolog/SWI7_and_ISO

Might have been the same time when SWI-Prolog dicts
were heralded as a community invention.
Irony how they ignored existing attribute

variable syntax already back then. But now
since the horizon has strong new players, the
world has become more threatening with Scryer Prolog.

PIPs and the label "Prolog" are abused, and
there is a revival of the standardization idea,
now rebrandished as "light". Before it was only one

system has it all, all extensions, and its
SWI-Prolog, so everything is fine. SWI-Prolog
was the vessel for consolidation of extensions.

Now the aims have dramatically changed, its
about to snip off a piece of the Prolog world.
And bring other Prolog systems on board, because

there are new amazing competitor vessels
cruising the Prolog ocean.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Here my citation source:
> 
> https://swi-prolog.discourse.group/t/dicts-attribute-variables-and-cyclic-terms/9324 
> 
> 
> a) Turn bottom up PIPs into top-down ISO-2:
> 
> "Some discussions are going on in the PIP
> working group related to synchronize (as a
> lightweight standardize) some aspects
> between Prolog systems."
> - Jan W.
> 
> b) Clueless about SWI Var dicts Unification:
> 
>   - The syntax <atom>{<key>:<any>,...} for “structs”
>      (i.e. where the name is the functor name);
>   - The syntax <var>{<key>:<any>,...} for attributed vars.
> - Julio Di Egidio
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I big advantage of PoC derived only PIPs is a
>> firm scope. Put PoC first, derive PIPs bottom up,
>> and not the other way around use PIPs to spark
>>
>> PoCs top down. A PoC would surely have a strong
>> boundary scope. On the other hand these PIPs now
>> have very weak fuzzy scopes.
>>
>> They should put Boris the Loris into the
>> steering board, he was very good when
>> it came to community, and fuzzy versus
>>
>> non-fuzzy. PoC based PIPs would probably
>> have clean descriptions, and not this horror
>> of Fuzzyness, where PIPs don't know their own Scope!!!
>>
>> APPENDIX: META-DISCUSSION FOR THIS PIP
>> What should be covered in this PIP?
>> https://prolog-lang.org/ImplementersForum/0102-dicts.html
>>
>> TBD: relate with current_struct/1 ECLiPSe?
>> TBD: Discuss it
>> TBD: useful for portray, translation to dynamic dicts (Jan)
>> https://prolog-lang.org/ImplementersForum/0104-argnames.html
>>
>> Such discussion would be find in the GitHub
>> of a PoC, in case the PoC was developed
>> with GitHub. Nowadays the GitHub could even
>>
>> contain longwinding discussions, since GitHub
>> offers discussions, its even not necessary
>> to put discussions into issue tickets.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The PoC (Proof of Concept) aspect of a PIP
>>> gets totally ignored. A PIP should be backed
>>> by a small number of systems implementing
>>>
>>> the proposal. This has implications on what
>>> topic can be chosen and what staff can work
>>> on a PIP. Ask Boris the Loris for the semiotics
>>>
>>> of a PoC. Now PIPs have been perverted into
>>> a forum to siphon Money into the Nowhere:
>>>
>>> - Some discussions are going on in the PIP
>>>    working group related to synchronize (as a
>>>    lightweight standardize) some aspects
>>>    between Prolog systems.
>>>
>>> So PIP has become ISO-2. Its not anymore
>>> a PIP, which would modularly maybe conflicting,
>>> collect proposals. One could very easily
>>>
>>> jigsaw different dict efforts into separate
>>> PIPs, when then work inheritly different.
>>> Instead the goal is now "lightweight"
>>>
>>> standardizing. It shows in this mess:
>>>
>>> Dictionaries in Prolog (dynamic)
>>> https://prolog-lang.org/ImplementersForum/0102-dicts.html
>>>
>>> Terms with named arguments (static dicts)
>>> https://prolog-lang.org/ImplementersForum/0104-argnames.html
>>>
>>> Not a proposal at all. Just a big big mess.
>>> Theretically when we assume that a PIP has
>>> already PoCs, namely at least 2 Prolog systems
>>>
>>> that implement something.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Julio Di Egidio schrieb:
>>>> On 27/09/2025 20:10, Mild Shock wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lets not forget that SWI-Prolog is now doomed
>>>>> to have professional moron Julio Di Egidio
>>>>> on board. Lets see what he says about dicts:
>>>>>
>>>>>   - The syntax <atom>{<key>:<any>,...} for “structs”
>>>>>      (i.e. where the name is the functor name);
>>>>>   - The syntax <var>{<key>:<any>,...} for attributed vars.
>>>>>
>>>>> LoL, I guess he has never heard of unification.
>>>>
>>>> You just mangle quotes and go out on an insane and
>>>> abusive, even personally abusive, tangent: as usual.
>>>>
>>>> Welcome back to my kill-file, under the rubric
>>>> stupidity is a moral defect.
>>>>
>>>> *Plonk*
>>>>
>>>> -Julio
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 

Back to comp.lang.prolog | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

How SWI-Prolog went down hills Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-27 19:50 +0200
  Re: Julio Di Egidio has never heard of unification (Was: How SWI-Prolog went down hills) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-09-27 20:41 +0200
    The PoC (Proof of Concept) aspect of a PIP (Was: Julio Di Egidio has never heard of unification) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-28 08:15 +0200
      Help! We need Boris the Loris, its all Fuzzy (Was: The PoC (Proof of Concept) aspect of a PIP) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-28 08:24 +0200
        My Citation Source : SWI-Prolog discourse (Was: Help! We need Boris the Loris, its all Fuzzy) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-28 08:30 +0200
          SWI-Prolog as the gravity of all: Dream Big / Dream Standard (Was: My Citation Source : SWI-Prolog discourse) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-28 08:46 +0200
            How to make a tag variable an attributed variable (Was: SWI-Prolog as the gravity of all: Dream Big / Dream Standard) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-28 14:41 +0200
  Julio Di Egidio has never heard of unification (Was: How SWI-Prolog went down hills) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-27 20:10 +0200

csiph-web